If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Who is more ready?

Also saying it fires blanks isn't really a big deal at all. Say it misses 50 pitches. The compositions of those pitches would be roughly the same as that of the entire 2000 sample size. If it misses only a few, it might affect a sample size of less than 100, but at 500+ pitches the 5 that it missed is only 1&#37;

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by dougdirt

It means little considering that Bailey was 6 years younger when those two seasons happened, and regardless of what some people want to say had nothing to do with Bailey's performance (despite the fact that his obvious bad games all came directly after this happened before he went on the dl), he also pitched hurt for 3 of those games.

While I agree that a Hudson/Bailey comparison isn't quite right, Bailey's July 7th effort was likely his best start of the season.

BTW, Bailey's excuse for the two starts prior to July 7th wasn't injury. It was "flaw in delivery". If a guy is really hurting and knows that his injury is likely affecting his performance (as he should), does he actually spend time watching video to detect and correct a flaw in his delivery?

At this point, Krivsky was obviously not concerned with an alleged groin injury. Krivsky is on record noting that the optioning of Bailey to AAA wouldn't have happened if not for the All-Star break.

After being sent to the minors, Wayne Krivsky was quoted: "Go pitch and get people out. The better you pitch, the better chance you have to get back." Bailey needed 90 pitches to traverse 3.1 Innings (6 Runs, 5 BB) in his Start prior to that comment. His last start prior to the DL stint resulted in a 5-Run (2 ER) 5.2 IP outing.

Now, keep in mind that Bailey is not someone who has a history of not reporting injuries. And the Reds are not a team that has a history of running Homer Bailey to the mound with even a minor injury. In fact, what Bailey considered to be a "minor" injury reportedly pushed back Bailey's 2005 debut. While the current Reds' Front Office has obviously been more aggressive with Bailey's advancement, it seems odd that the Reds MLB and AAA coaching staffs and executives couldn't identify what Krivsky described as a "moderate" groin strain well before he was finally put on the DL. It's sure possible that a minor strain was exacerbated in his two mid-season AAA starts, it's also possible that the injury was caused by either of those starts.

doug, do you have a quote or source that identifies the initial groin injury being prior to July 19th, 2007? If so, I'd very much appreciate that information.

"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch thatís over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.Ē
--Ted Williams

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by dougdirt

It means little considering that Bailey was 6 years younger when those two seasons happened, and regardless of what some people want to say had nothing to do with Bailey's performance (despite the fact that his obvious bad games all came directly after this happened before he went on the dl), he also pitched hurt for 3 of those games. Even if you want to toss that last part out, Hudson was 27 when that happened. Bailey wont turn 27 until May of the 2013 season.

I just thought it was an intriguingly similar stat line.

I'm very aware that Hudson was nowhere near the talent that Bailey is alleged to be and that he was already full developed when he posted that season.

It suggests nothing as a comp, I just thought people might find it interesting. FWIW -- everyone gravitated towards Hudson's ERA and projected him as a fix in the Red's rotation. That never worked out so well.

Goes to show you that 9 games are just that -- 9 games. Bailey had a bad run of 9 games. Tough to project anything at all from that with any degree of certainty.

The big thing for Bailey is heís healthy. He tried to pitch through the groin problem. He said he originally hurt it on June 26 in Philadelphia. He made four starts after that Ė two for the Reds and two for Louisville Ė before going on the disabled list.

While it doesn't note it here, I know that I read John Fay say it somewhere that he hurt it in the bullpen session before this game. That however was the best thing I could find online after searching for about 15 minutes.

Re: Who is more ready?

I'm very aware that Hudson was nowhere near the talent that Bailey is alleged to be and that he was already full developed when he posted that season.

It suggests nothing as a comp, I just thought people might find it interesting. FWIW -- everyone gravitated towards Hudson's ERA and projected him as a fix in the Red's rotation. That never worked out so well.

Goes to show you that 9 games are just that -- 9 games. Bailey had a bad run of 9 games. Tough to project anything at all from that with any degree of certainty.

Bailey had a bad run of 3 games really.... all in which he was pitching with a bum groin.

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by mlbfan30

It's amazing how behind some of you could be at math. 40% of a sample size is enough data to notice tendencies of that pitcher. All if is is a fraction of the total, but the composition of that fraction would be roughly the same no matter how large of the sample size. You don't need pitches from every start to get the general idea of the way he throws. It's not like he would go from 70% fastballs to 55% fastballs in 1 year. It just doesn't happen. The range of error increases with a smaller sample size, but the 400 or so pitches is enough data to get a range of +- 2% I would say. That's the difference of throwing 68 or 72 fastballs per 100 pitches, which when you think about it is faily significant over a full season. But say if every type of pitch was +-3%, that is still enough info to find out the general idea of what he throws. Speed would probably have a smaller range of error.

Sample size is important, but the context matters a lot. 80 IP is generally (2.5 months) enough to see how good a pitcher is. You would most likely expect similar peripherals for each 80 IP increment of a pitcher say over 1 year. That's also 40%

80 IP is good enough to see how good a pitcher is? No. No way. I'm not sure you're considering the impact of randomness in the game of baseball. Less than half of a full season might indicate something about behavioral tendencies, but it says little about actual performance quality.

Here's a data set involving 56.2% of a MLB hitter's season in 2006:

.275 BA/.353 OBP/.445 SLG

And here's another from 2007 (50.99% of the season):

.270 BA/.353 OBP/.391 SLG

Here's a data set from 44.7% of a pitcher's season in 2007:

4.04 ERA/1.47 HR per 9/10.89 K per 9/2.02 BB per 9

The first player is Mark Teixiera from pre-ASB 2006. The second is Edwin Encarnacion from pre-ASB 2007. The last player is Johan Santana from Post-ASB 2007.

I didn't look hard to find those samples. They were the first three players that popped up in my head. Single-season samples above 40% don't necessarily clue us in to actual propensities or ability. And you don't have the data to tell us that a player can't possibly go from 70% Fastballs to 55% fastballs- particularly when working with lower sample sizes. If you do have the data to tell us that, then by all means show your work. Otherwise, that's an intuitive reach on your part, and it has nothing to do with math (good, bad, or otherwise). You're guessing. That's not math. It's lazy.

Also saying it fires blanks isn't really a big deal at all. Say it misses 50 pitches. The compositions of those pitches would be roughly the same as that of the entire 2000 sample size. If it misses only a few, it might affect a sample size of less than 100, but at 500+ pitches the 5 that it missed is only 1%

Do you know the margain for error for tracked f/x pitches or the actual percentage of pitches the system misses? If not, then your claims of being a superior mathemetician really don't matter because your methodology starts from a position of assumption rather than fact. Sorry, but I'm not really interested in that kind of pseudo-logic.

"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch thatís over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.Ē
--Ted Williams

Re: Who is more ready?

That's soothing. Not trying to be snarky. It's just that glitches like that don't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I don't really consider it an issue especially given the possibilities the system opens up for research. BTW, for Homer, f/x missed 4&#37; of the pitches he threw in the games tracked. It's something i'd gladly live with.... No one is saying the system is perfect but the possibilities it allows are pretty exciting.

Originally Posted by SteelSD

So if the second sample isn't included in the f/x data, where'd you get it?

The data you're referring too (Homer's rate stats) can be easily compiled from multiple sources on the web (I think I used fan graphs but there other places that provide the raw data) and it's pretty easy to parse between starts in a spreadsheet.

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Unfortunately, we can't ignore those two starts.

Once again, you don't have to in order to appreciate that the f/x data was taken from a sample that wasn't dramatically different from either Homer's non-f/x games or his complete season.

I included the "just for fun" comparison just for fun.

Anyway like stated earlier:

Originally Posted by jojo

Obviously the results could be effected by sample size/park but I think the 70% fastball tendency agrees with my eyes.

Originally Posted by jojo

While more is always better, 43% of Homer's pitches in '07 is probably large enough to determine his overall pitch tendencies for the season (i.e. those 356 pitches are representative of his 815), get an idea of how his stuff looked (velocity/break), and probably get an idea of how he attacked lefties vs righties.

That said, there are certainly questions that these data couldn't inform.

I don't think those assertions overstep/ignore the limitations of the data.

If the total of my comments posted on the ORG about Homer were distilled into a few sentences, they would look something like this:

Great stuff/poor command; prematurely promoted to the majors; over reliance on his fastball with a need to refine his secondary pitches, too soon to call him a bust.

Certainly, I'm not using that data to argue that Homer will post a K/9: >8 and a BB/9: <4.0 next season (because I agree with you that such a projection is beyond aggressive). In fact the f/x data suggests he didn't have anything close to major league quality command in '07 while demonstrating a below-average make 'em miss ability despite above average velocity on his fastball and above average break on his curve. That data BTW, agrees very well with my eyes.

Last edited by jojo; 12-18-2007 at 09:28 AM.

"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by SteelSD

the next day it's theoretical xFIP

To be fair, xFIP is very useful for starters.

"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

Re: Who is more ready?

Great stuff/poor command; prematurely promoted to the majors; over reliance on his fastball with a need to refine his secondary pitches, too soon to call him a bust.

Certainly, I'm not using that data to argue that Homer will post a K/9: >8 and a BB/9: <4.0 next season (because I agree with you that such a projection is beyond aggressive). In fact the f/x data suggests he didn't have anything close to major league quality command in '07 while demonstrating a below-average make 'em miss ability despite above average velocity on his fastball and above average break on his curve. That data BTW, agrees very well with my eyes.

I'd agree with this assessment in large part -- and I saw just about every one of Homer's starts. I would add -- he made progress with his curveball. It was much better in the starts he made after coming back from injury. So -- in my opinion, he took a step forward in a relatively short period of time, despite having been knocked around in some earlier starts. A nice trait to see.

"Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Pitcher A: Luke Hudson
Pitcher B: Homer Bailey

It means ERA is a crap statistic for performance projection. There's so much variance in the things that cause runs to score that ERA is nearly useless as a measure of pitcher effectiveness over a small number of innings.

What I think we're all forgetting about Bailey is just how young he is. If he were still in Chattanooga blowing people away, we'd all still be singing his praises. We should appreciate the difference between a 27 year old Luke Hudson who was essentially a finished product and a 21 year old Homer Bailey who has just 317.7 professional innings under his belt.

CE, I really like your comment:

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

It suggests nothing as a comp, I just thought people might find it interesting. FWIW -- everyone gravitated towards Hudson's ERA and projected him as a fix in the Red's rotation. That never worked out so well.

Goes to show you that 9 games are just that -- 9 games. Bailey had a bad run of 9 games. Tough to project anything at all from that with any degree of certainty.

Last edited by RedsManRick; 12-18-2007 at 12:49 PM.

Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

Re: Who is more ready?

Steel, I appreciate your post. Few people really understand fully the metrics being tossed around (the assumptions, implications, history, etc.), and I consider myself on the periphery of understanding at best.

We usually know enough to make the case or counterpoint, and often that's not a problem. But we should be careful about just how far we run with our conclusions. I think that generally speaking, we'd all be better off using data to make "observations" than "points".

It's interesting to me that a few tenants of analysis are constantly violated in thread after thread. Things like sample size, variance, etc. are routinely given lip service but not wholly informing the points being made. I know it's not fun to come to the conclusion that "Homer Bailey's 2007 MLB performance tells us very little about what he's likely to do in 2008". "I don't know" is usually a conversation ender. We should be willing to do that more than we seem to be.

Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Steel, I appreciate your post. Few people really understand fully the metrics being tossed around (the assumptions, implications, history, etc.), and I consider myself on the periphery of understanding at best.

We usually know enough to make the case or counterpoint, and often that's not a problem. But we should be careful about just how far we run with our conclusions. I think that generally speaking, we'd all be better off using data to make "observations" than "points".

It's interesting to me that a few tenants of analysis are constantly violated in thread after thread. Things like sample size, variance, etc. are routinely given lip service but not wholly informing the points being made. I know it's not fun to come to the conclusion that "Homer Bailey's 2007 MLB performance tells us very little about what he's likely to do in 2008". "I don't know" is usually a conversation ender. We should be willing to do that more than we seem to be.

How many people are solely using Homer's '07 to predict his '08 though?

"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by jojo

How many people are solely using Homer's '07 to predict his '08 though?

Soley? Quite few. But I've seen a lot of posts recently which suggest people's opinions of him have been significantly altered by his MLB performance. Frankly, I don't think his 2007 performance in the majors tells us anything that we didn't already know in May of last year. Throw in the complication of an injury which we don't know everything about and the 50 innings from this year should only be a tiny part of our evaluation.

Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Frankly, I don't think his 2007 performance in the majors tells us anything that we didn't already know in May of last year. Throw in the complication of an injury which we don't know everything about and the 50 innings from this year should only be a tiny part of our evaluation.

"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

Re: Who is more ready?

Originally Posted by jojo

How many people are solely using Homer's '07 to predict his '08 though?

Personally, I'm not. I'm looking at his entire body of work as a professional and I see a lot of high BB rates. If you are walking 4+ batters per 9 at the minor league level, you are going to get ripped in the show by any team with the slightest bit of patience. Yes, age has something to do with his performance at the major league level, but it was easy to predict that he was going to walk a lot of batters.

Cueto on the other hand has never had a BB/9 higher than 3.36 and his career minor league BB/9 is half Bailey's. (4.23 to 2.12)

Using Cueto's entire body of work I think if he got the exact same AAA treatment Bailey did, followed by the same PROJECTED number of starts, you'll get a similar result in that Cueto's BB/9 will probably go up a bit. His K/9 will probably go down a bit. But because right now his command is better than Bailey's the overall result will be far better.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball